1 of 2

Contrary to what this story asserts, NOTHING about Sound Transit’s light rail efforts has been based on any “promise of shared prosperity.” It is disingenuous of the author to suggest otherwise.

Sound Transit's PR team always tries to justify its massive, regressive taxing scheme on the grounds that "we have to impose these tax costs because Atlanta got light rail money we could have had in the 1970's". Atlanta did not get “shared prosperity” from light rail, even though that system has been up and running for three decades. In fact, a series of recent reports about the lousy economy there demonstrates that light rail system Atlanta got doesn't mean squat in terms of increasing the overall economic pie in urban areas where it goes in:

http://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/Home-prices-down-in-Seattle-area-nationwide-3505856.php

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017848797_homeprices28.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017382805_homeprices01.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017616157_caseshiller29.html

Those plummeting home prices in Atlanta recently show even light rail financed the right way (e.g., mostly with federal dollars) does not appreciably help local economies. The abusive and highly regressive financing plan Sound Transit uses -- alone among its peers – means it is a GUARANTEED loser for the people of this region.

Sound Transit’s light rail was meant to engender only one type of secondary benefit: it was meant to increase a handful of property developers’ profits. Other than the direct financial beneficiaries of the new taxing, spending, and bond-selling, that is the only interest group that obtains substantial benefits from light rail systems.

2 of 2

When community leaders wanted the light the light rail to come through the Valley, their intention was to bring economic opportunity to an underinvested area.

Those community leaders were misled by Nickels and Phillips. All those community leaders would have had to do is look to the example of Atlanta to see that communities of color don’t benefit whatsoever from light rail systems. I suppose these people the author refers to now have learned their lesson.

Our recent Puget Sound Sage report, Transit Oriented Development that’s Healthy, Green and Just, provides evidence that gentrification is happening in the Valley. By gentrification, we mean new people with higher incomes have been moving into Rainier Valley and station-area land value and rents are on the rise.

There are two fallacies inherent in these assertions from the story.

First, I’ll assume some data suggest this kind of “gentrification” has occurred since 2009. The report does not identify the particular facts that might validate this assertion though.

Here’s the thing, just because that (supposed) phenomenon began occurring when light rail began operating does not mean it was caused by light rail. Temporal correlation does not equal causation. Nothing about that report suggests the authors even tried to establish a causal correlation between light rail and what they call “gentrification”. Also, that kind of “gentrification” likely is the result just of the hundreds of millions of dollars of SHA residential construction for low-income tenants in that area over the past couple of decades bringing about a different racial mix.

Second, the data from the assessor’s office show “station-area land value” has NOT risen due to light rail. Take single family residential properties, the largest category of properties there. You can get assessor’s office value data (using iMap) for properties near stations. Here are some within four blocks of the Othello St. light rail station; those properties’ values now only are at about the same level as they were in 2006, which is three years before light rail was operating:

4421 S FRONTENAC ST -- it is worth less than in 2006

4609 S ORCHARD ST-- it is worth less than in 2006

4614 S GARDEN ST -- it is worth the same as in 2006

Moreover, property values in other parts of the region that are nowhere near light rail stations have done far better than that over the same period.

The themes this story puts out are not supported by good data or valid analytic methodologies. Looking at the assessor’s office data demonstrates the author’s cute narrative about widespread secondary economic benefits being caused by light rail is false.

x

Curlove,

It's a shame that you can't come out from an anonymous handle to make accusations about me that you do. I actually sign my name to what I write, something you obviously don't have the courage to do. When you do I'll address your insinuation.

As for the spin being offered by Sage (and apparently by Brock Howell of Futurewise) that "gentrification is fine without displacement," it still doesn't ameliorate the very bold statement in the Sage report that says that people of color should remain the majority. The spin that, "sure, white people are welcome, as long as they don't "displace" people of color," doesn't make this statement any less problematic.

Sage would do well to simply back off that statement, focus on jobs, living wages, and improving the quality of life of all people in the Valley. But they have been put in the ironic position of saying that what redlining accomplished in the past should now be institutionalized in the future. That isn't sustainable or progressive.

x

Curlove.

Do you really think it forwards your position to personalize the issues? It doesn't make you look very good -- of course maybe that's why you choose anonymity? I can never understand why people hide themselves on issues about which there is intense but reasonable disagreement.

As to bringing John Fox into it, while I have disagreed with him far more than I have agreed, I consider him to be a valuable voice and comparing Roger's commitment to John's is a compliment, to both, though I am not sure that that was your intention.

Roger has brought forth an extremely valuable perspective -- elements of the Sage study -- and I suggest that you apologize if indeed I am understanding your remarks as ad hominem.

Fight hard. Keep it clean.

Curlove

In his article Roger Valdez pointed out that if a published report stated that "Northeast Seattle neighborhoods should remain majority white people.", we would be rightfully outraged. You argue that since the "demographic trend in the U.S. toward a majority of all residents being people of color by 2040" it is perfectly alright to argue in a report that public policies should be shaped to ensure the Rainer Valley should stay that way. Since demographic projections also show that the majority of citizens with upper middle class incomes will be remain white well past 2040, then the same arguments could be advanced in a report to maintain Northeast Seattle as majority white. Indeed such arguments were made about 50 years ago throughout a good part of America but fortunately our society has moved past this. You should be ashamed of your comments.

@crossrip. Take a look at some real land value research in the Rainier Valley. Slide 23 on this presentation. http://psrc.org/assets/6927/Case_for_a_TOD_Fund.pdf

That slide has absolutely nothing to do with properties owned by people who live near a light rail station. It identifies theoretical value changes of properties owned by SHA, Chase, B of A, Safeway, some companies that own large apartment complexes,etc. Right now the area around that rail station is a bunch of empty lots where the previous commercial buildings were torn down. Properties there are not selling, it looks like a wasteland. How is occupancy at The Station Apartments?

That slide provides data supporting my point. The properties owned by developers increase near light rail stations, but the properties of regular people near light rail don't benefit from it. Contrary to what this story asserts - and what you imply - the "gentrification [ ] happening in the Valley" is not any kind of "shared prosperity". It is instead a secondary economic effect resulting from a massive transfer of wealth from poor and middle class people of this region to a handful of large companies and developers who own commercial and large multi-family residential properties near the few stations.

I agree with Ms. Saldana's points. It offers a positive and measured look at a difficult challenge, how can we create the conditions for "shared prosperity?"

Encouraging growth around light rail makes sense if it enriches communities rather than displaces them. She sums up the heart of the issue saying that, ".. we have to start with conditions on the ground — including a deep understanding of what low-income communities of color need to build stronger ties to their neighborhoods and harness the power of new investment"

Public investments (parks, schools, roads and transit)can have great benefit to communities -- though I imagine cross-rip would be happier just being left alone on his little ranchette wtihout urban amentities. If we're going to invest in and focus urban growth in transit-rich areas, let's make sure they are places where existing communities share the benefits.

Thanks for your thoughful work.

Public investments (parks, schools, roads and transit)can have great benefit to communities.

The facts don't support your premise. Identify how light rail benefited "the communities of color" after it went in in Atlanta. Hint: you won't be able to do that. Light rail does not help "communities of color". The secondary economic effects of light rail benefit the few rich property developers who build up near new stations -- that's it.

If we're going to invest in and focus urban growth in transit-rich areas, let's make sure they are places where existing communities share the benefits.

It's too late for that -- there is no "if" about the massive transit investments there, the train line already is in place.

From what I can tell from her story, the author is proposing more government-financed low income residential construction near train stations, with residents restricted by race ("we need more investment in affordable, family-sized housing, especially for families with low-wage earners. . . . Ethnically diverse communities also need to keep and deepen the ties that bind — locally serving businesses, places for cultural activities, and services in appropriate languages").

Is that the suggestion? Do you really think that would strengthen existing communities? That was tried outside Paris in the 1960's and it was a failure. Residential buildings with high density for ethnic minorities were built along trail lines outside Paris, and it was a public-planning disaster. That is the Le Corbusier TOD model. Those residential structures now are being torn down.

Do you want to emulate that failure here? Read about it, and catch a clue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/europe/07banlieues.html?pagewanted=all

Outdated urban design theory held economic, social welfare, and environmental reasons justified large-scale apartments/condos built next to passenger rail stations, ostensibly because The Workers then would have “access to jobs down the train line” without the need to own cars. Big thinking like that is a proven mistake.

There have been hundreds of millions of dollars spent on SHA residential construction in that area over the past couple of decades. If that didn’t work out to your liking, more of that kind of massive public spending on low-income housing probably would make things worse, right?

Thanks Rebecca for a great discussion on the importance of taking a holistic view toward building our communities together.

We need to recognize past discrimination, recognize the hundreds of thousands of people coming to the region over the next 3 decades and who they are/will be, and figure out how we can grow our communities together with shared prosperity.

Tackling the problem of displacement is a key first step. We need to make sure we protect & strengthen the cultures, social networks, and social safety nets that currently exist. As you highlight in your article, this is key not just to achieve socially justice outcomes, but also sustainable outcomes too.

Rebecca is right:southend residents can survive the changes that come from TOD only if they have access to higher-wage employment. Development should not equal displacement.

You want to know the largest barrier to higher wage entry level jobs around here? The exceedingly high regressive taxes. That sucks money out of poor communities, preventing new small business job creation. Sound Transit has confiscated about six billion dollars of regressive tax revenue from the people (mostly) and businesses around here. That has hurt the communities of color around here FAR more than any benefits provided to them by light rail.

Sound Transit light rail in the Rainier Valley should serve the communities that ride public transit - the working poor. This report is asking the right questions about how we can ensure that those communities thrive in Seattle, rather than displacing them to outlying suburbs.

The commenter challenging Sage's assertion of property values is missing the point. There's much more that local communities, local government, and local businesses can do to create economic opportunities for Rainier Valley residents because of the light rail. So let's work together to make those opportunities happen, instead of allowing a handful of developers and property owners to profit while everyone else gets left behind. I'm grateful that Puget Sound Sage is helping to move forward this important conversation.

Since "Kaur22" also appears to hold the mistaken belief that light rail is some kind of magic force for social justice and economic equity, I'll ask him to respond to the same issues I addressed to another poster above.

Hey Kaur22, give me your thoughts on this. From what I can tell from her story, the author is proposing more government-financed low income residential construction near train stations, with residents restricted by race ("we need more investment in affordable, family-sized housing, especially for families with low-wage earners. . . . Ethnically diverse communities also need to keep and deepen the ties that bind — locally serving businesses, places for cultural activities, and services in appropriate languages").

Is that the suggestion? Do you really think that would strengthen existing communities? That was tried outside Paris in the 1960's and it was a failure. Residential buildings with high density for ethnic minorities were built along trail lines outside Paris, and it was a public-planning disaster. That is the Le Corbusier TOD model. It is a manifestation of white arrogance. Those residential structures now are being torn down.

Do you want to emulate that failure here? Read about it, and catch a clue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/europe/07banlieues.html?pagewanted=all

Outdated urban design theory held economic, social welfare, and environmental reasons justified large-scale apartments/condos built next to passenger rail stations, ostensibly because The Workers then would have “access to jobs down the train line” without the need to own cars. Big thinking like that is a proven mistake.

There have been hundreds of millions of dollars spent on SHA residential construction in that area over the past couple of decades. If that didn’t work out to your liking, more of that kind of massive public spending on low-income housing probably would make things worse, right?

I don't believe that light rail is a magic force. But it is a reality. It is shaping the lives and the communities of South Seattle. It is affecting how people commute and how people live. That is a reality, that is not magic. How we deal with the reality of light rail development can either help or hurt (displace) the communities that live around it.

The author is not suggesting we create the banlieues of Paris. She specifically says: "gentrification coupled with increasing prosperity for low-income households can be a good thing." Affordable housing is one piece of the puzzle. So is access to good jobs accessible by public transit that would enable workers to continue to live along the light rail. So is the development of small businesses that cater to local communities. So is creating afterschool programs that will educate and empower the children growing up in the Rainier Valley. So is creating access to quality groceries that are affordable as well. So is helping homeowners facing foreclosure work with the banks to help them stay in their homes. And so on.

None of these things are the magic bullet, and no one agency or person will solve all the issues regarding development along the light rail. But allowing gentrification without any regard to community development is a mistake, and would be a missed opportunity for Seattle to develop and enrich a diverse middle class (that actually uses public transit).

I agree it would be a good idea for all to get more specific and that not doing so is where the mischief creeps in.

From the NYT article in crossrip's reply:

"Le Corbusier, held that residential areas ought to remain separate from roads and the workplace, and so the cluster was built as a sort of island; residents trudged across a muddy field to reach the adjacent train station. ...“Mixing” and “openness” have replaced “separation” and “uniformity” as the watchwords of the day. But the central lesson of the past decades, Ms. Vatov said, has been the error of such faith in the power of architecture. 'It’s not enough to build in a certain way,' she said, especially without more pointed efforts to improve education and employment....

Balzac was once a “magnificent” and “convivial” place, said Soraya, the former resident, where neighbors left their doors open and competed to outdo one another with balcony flower arrangements. But it fell into disrepair within a decade. Built cheaply, the units leaked and crumbled. More recently, the elevators seldom ran. The rats moved in."

How about setting aside all the chatter about "density" and look at the needs of those who live in the current density? The article in question suggest a focus on education and employment. If that were done might not it gentrify "naturally?"

Well said, Rebecca. Looking at race and land use in Seattle is hard, but necessary, if you care about what kind of city we are shaping for the future.

Her group is not just "looking at race and land use in Seattle". Here is what this story says:

"Gentrification does not have to lead to displacement. But the two will go hand in hand if current residents cannot afford to stay as the public and private sector make investments."

The author's group in fact is advocating for a specific set of government policies. This proposed solution includes more government-financed low income residential construction near these train stations, with residents to be selected by race ("we need more investment in affordable, family-sized housing, especially for families with low-wage earners. . . . Ethnically diverse communities also need to keep and deepen the ties that bind — locally serving businesses, places for cultural activities, and services in appropriate languages").

The vision espoused here is to keep minorities from escaping to whiter parts of the region by giving them dense subsidized apartments near train stations. This group says that will strengthen "communities of color". This program is designed to segregate and make available to commercial property developers and other facilities managers a pool of cheap minority labor that can be delivered by train to clean, perform menial services work, etc.

I find that vision disgusting, but it's what the political, organized labor and business leaders around here have been pushing for over the past several decades.

CrossRip,

Everyone in this thread basically agrees that the reality or potential is that, "The secondary economic effects of light rail benefit the few rich property developers who build up near new stations -- that's it."

WHAT WOUL YOU PROPOSE to help people stay in their homes and communities when light rail is constructed, and rich property developers are buying up land, and taxes are going up?

I won't presume to speak for Crossrip, but we could start with J-O-B-S. Manufacturing jobs. Union jobs. Or is just that too quaint a notion?

I have read this article twice and as best I can tell it does a great job of pointing out a problem caused by gentrification along the light rail lines but says nothing with any specificity about the solution. We are told we need "smart, locally-tailored strategies" but aside from reader infering that this requiring developers to build affordable housing, the article does nothing to explain what these strategies are or why they need to be locally-tailored. Affordable housing requirements could be usefully applied everywhere. (Yet again a Crosscut author is using "smart" to try and disguise a lack of substance.)

Gentrification and displacement is probably inevitable along light rail lines if they fulfill their potential to provide hugely subsidized transport to the lucky few who both live and work near stations - people will pay for that convenience. This seems to be yet another argument for why expanded bus service is a much better and flexible (as well as cheaper) solution to our regional transport needs.

Kuddos to Rebecca for a great article.

I live in the Valley near Othello Station. I certainly hope that genetrification and displacement are not inevitable in the Valley. I don't believe they have to be. There are excellent tools, strategies and solutions to prevent displacement. They real question is whether or not we mobilize to take them up.

The course that transit oriented development takes in our neighborhood will have everything to do with whether or not low income and communities of color in the Valley are able to organize to gain political, social and economic power.

I recently returned from a visit to St. Paul MN, where lightrail is under construction through communities very much like those in the Valley. The response of St. Paul communities to the potential for gentrification/displacement has been truly innovative, proactive and effective.

In St. Paul low income neighborhoods and communities of color already resident near light rail stations are taking control of the physical sites surrounding stations. They have built coalitions and brought together alliances that are leveraging private donations as well as federal/state/local funds to purchase the land near stations, invest in local, ethnic microenterprises at station corners, and building libraries, Senior Housing, etc. The neighborhoods are organizing to be at the helm of the solutions.

I truly believe that gaining control of the physical sites in this way is the best strategy to ensure that development is accountable to and benefits Rainier Valley neighborhoods. Community Benefit Agreements will also be of critical importance!

Probably the most important factor affecting whether or not we "get transit oriented development right" in the Valley will be the social and political power we as residents are able to build.

It is not enough to nay-say development. Its coming. We need to organize.

Thanks Julie for making the connection that other places may have advanced past "prescribing the problem"— the solution pushed ad nauseam by problems industries and growth coalitions.

Lo, a blogging urban designer puts an ear to the ground, hears L.A et al, and dares raise the question: "Is there a way to reap the benefits of redevelopment while avoiding the natural effects of the economic markets?"

http://helmofthepublicrealm.com/2012/06/16/transit_supply_demand_urban_design/

And sleeping on that, comes back the following week with the greater question: "In its simplest form, to redevelop, is to develop again, which implies doing it over completely. While regeneration most directly means “rebirth or renewal” of something, implying that the entity remains throughout the process....What does it say to a community when you eradicated everything that was their home and build it back with sub par architectural crap? "

http://helmofthepublicrealm.com/2012/06/21/definition_redevelopment_regeneration_differences/